Speaker 1: Welcome to Thrilling Threads, where we take a stack of sources,
articles and high impact research and stitch together the most hidden, surprising,
and well often controversial stories that shape our world.
Speaker 2: And today we are undertaking a very special deep dive.
It's one that really changes our perspective, not just on
the history of space exploration, but I mean maybe the
history of our planet itself.
Speaker 1: Right. We usually look so far out towards distant galaxies
or maybe deep into the ocean, looking for ruins, for
evidence of things we just can't explain. But what if
the most staggering evidence has been right.
Speaker 2: Here, right over our heads literally yeah.
Speaker 1: In our immediate cosmic backyard, orbiting Earth, and just completely
unnoticed for decades.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate case of hidden and plain sight, isn't it.
Today we're unpacking the well the explosive research led by
a Swedish astronomer, doctor Beatric Villerile. She's working with the
Vasco team at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics.
Speaker 1: And the key thing is they didn't even start by
looking for UFOs, not at all.
Speaker 2: No, they were looking for vanishing stars and what they
found instead was evidence from these old historical photographic plates
that suggest tens of thousands, tens of thousands of highly
reflective artificial objects have been orbiting us since before the
space race even kick it off.
Speaker 1: Okay, so our main source here is this really intense
hour long interview with doctor Villa Royle herself. It was
featured on the Angry Astronaut YouTube channel for you listening.
Our mission today is to give you the shortcut to
understanding the complex statistical proofs she presents, and it's evidence that,
in her own words, has yet to be refuted exactly.
Speaker 2: This isn't, you know, some fuzzy video or an anecdotal story.
This is hard photographic evidence, systematically analyzed over years that
confirms the existence of well hundreds, if not tens of
thousands of non human artifacts in Earth orbit and in
the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 1: No less, the sheer audacity of it all is kind
of captured in the YouTube title, isn't it It claims
this discovery is bigger news than three eye out lists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the three eye atless survey, And for anyone who
follows astronomy, that's a huge claim. That's a massive astronomical survey.
Speaker 1: It is, But the numbers that doctor Villi Reel presents,
they really do just stop you cold. Her conservative guestimate is,
what was it tens of thousands.
Speaker 2: Tens of thousands of highly reflective objects just in the
nineteen fifty And here's.
Speaker 1: Where the thread gets really thrilling, because these objects, they
don't just appear randomly. They correlate in this very mysterious way,
not with like solar flares or normal stuff. No, with us,
with us with highly significant specific events in human history.
We're talking major nuclear tests and some of the most
famous mass Ufo sightings ever recorded.
Speaker 2: So we are going to break down exactly how they
use the Earth's own shadow to prove these things are real,
tangible objects and why they seem to appear when the
world is holding its breath.
Speaker 1: The story of how doctor Villaderzel even stumbled upon this
silent armada it's almost as compelling as the discovery itself.
Speaker 2: It really is. She's at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics,
which is part of Stockholm University in Sweden, and when
she began all this, her mind was completely focused on
the cosmic long game.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, she wasn't out there looking for techno signatures. Hovering
over New York or something. She was deep in the
realm of traditional SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
Speaker 2: Her initial focus was on these incredibly ambitious projects like
searching for disappearing stars.
Speaker 1: Which would imply what exactly well, it.
Speaker 2: Would imply either the star collapse into a black hole
or maybe something even more interesting, something more engineered. Precisely,
that's the Kardaschef connection. Her research was being driven by
the possibility of finding signs of super advanced civilizations, the
kind that might be say a level three or even
a level four on the Kardashev scale.
Speaker 1: Okay, so for anyone listening who maybe doesn't follow astrophysical classification,
let's just quickly break that down. The Kardashev scale is
it's a theoretic measure of how advanced a civilization is
based on the energy it can use.
Speaker 2: Right, That's right. It's all about.
Speaker 1: Energy, and the jump from level one to level three
is I mean, it's astronomical. Literally, a level one civilization
theoretically is one that can harness all the energy that
hits its own planet, all the solar wind, geothermal.
Speaker 2: Everything, a huge amount of power. But it's planetary and scale, right,
but a.
Speaker 1: Level two civilization takes it up in notch. They can
harness the total energy output of their entire star.
Speaker 2: Yeah, think of building something like a dice and swarm
or sphere. You'd surround the star with trillions of collectors,
and from our perspective, the star would just disappear. It
would be completely obscured. Doctor Vilaurel was looking for the
evidence of a star that had been, as she put it,
eaten up. It's light totally harnessed by a type two civilization.
Speaker 1: And a level three, which is what she was really
interested in. That's just mind boggling. That's a civilization that
can harness the energy of an entire.
Speaker 2: Galaxy, the power of billions of stars. So she was
thinking cosmologically, looking for this distant, definitive sign of some
incomprehensible power source.
Speaker 1: And this initial bias so crucial for her credibility here,
isn't it?
Speaker 2: It's everything? She freely admits she started with a personal
bias against the whole traditional concept of UFOs or anything
near Earth. She was focused exclusively on distant deep space SETI.
Speaker 1: So this entire discovery of orbital objects was it was
an accident.
Speaker 2: A complete accident, an entirely accidental byproduct of her original,
much grander quest.
Speaker 1: So she had this mission find a star that was
visible one hundred years ago on these old photographic plates
from observatories like Mount Pelamar, but has vanished from the
sky in modern surveys.
Speaker 2: And she was looking for objects that appeared in multiple
consecutive plates, something stable over decades.
Speaker 1: But that's not what they found at all.
Speaker 2: Not even close. When they went through decades of this
old analog film, these historical plates, they found something far
closer and way more frequent. Light flashes or transience as
they call them. These things were ephemeral, just showing up
once and then gone.
Speaker 1: And we're not talking about a few random dots here
and there.
Speaker 2: Row As the team started processing this enormous quantity of data,
they realized they had hundreds of thousands of these transients.
Speaker 1: And many of them had been literally ignored by astronomers
for the last century, just.
Speaker 2: Written off cataloged as plate defects or dust or scratches
because they didn't conform to any predictable stellar or astronomical behavior.
An isolated high speed flash just didn't fit the model,
so it was filed away as a flaw in the
analog film.
Speaker 1: It's an amazing historical oversight.
Speaker 2: It is what doctor Valeril and her team did. They
called themselves the VASCO Project, which stands for Vanishing and
Appearing sources during a century of observations. What they did
was systematically analyze those defects.
Speaker 1: It's like an interesting parallel to archaeology. You know, you're
sifting through the intellectual trash of a previous generation, and
suddenly the junk turns out to be treasure.
Speaker 2: A perfect and an They were looking for galactic powerhouses,
and they found a fleet of something right above their heads.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's talk numbers, because this is the part that
just defies common sense about what's supposed to be in orbit.
We're used to hearing about what a few hundred classified satellites,
maybe a few thousand pieces of space junk. Doctor Villarole's
team is talking about something on a totally different scale.
Speaker 2: The sheer volume of data is immense. They've cataloged roughly
one hundred and seven thousand transients, and that's just from
the Northern Hemisphere plates provided by the Mount Palomar Observatory.
Speaker 1: Sky Survey that's the raw data set.
Speaker 2: That's the raw data extracted over years of work.
Speaker 1: And the timing is so critical for context here. These plates,
they primarily cover the nineteen fifties. We're talking about the
dawn of the space age. These objects pre date almost
all of our own orbital activity.
Speaker 2: This is not starlink, this isn't even Sputnik debris.
Speaker 1: This is before all that exactly. So, even after they
filter out all the known false positives, doctor Villarole's conservative guestimate,
it's that we are talking about tens of thousands to
potentially hundreds of thousands of distinct, highly reflective objects that
were already in Earth orbit in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: And just think about that. If even ten percent of
those are real, that is an unprecedented density of non
human artifacts.
Speaker 1: And the way they appear on the plates that tells
us everything we need to know about their shape and
how they're moving.
Speaker 2: Yes, the objects always vanish after being seen in the
single plate. They're either moving incredibly fast or more likely
they're tumbling, and the reflective surface just instantly turns away
from the Sun.
Speaker 1: So they never found their original targets. The stable object
seene over one hundred years, but they found these high
speed flashes.
Speaker 2: Instead, and the physical characteristics that implies are key. These
are sharp on and off flashes, not long smeared streaks
of light.
Speaker 1: Right if you take a picture of a satellite or
an asteroid with long exposure, which these plates.
Speaker 2: Had forty five minutes, sometimes more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so they usually leave a trail a streak as
they move across the frame. But these weren't streaks.
Speaker 2: They were points of light, which implies.
Speaker 1: What a flat, highly polished object tumbling through space.
Speaker 2: It's like a mirror flash. The sunlight hits the flat
surface for just a fraction of a second, producing this
intense but momentary pinpoint of light. So this observation is
really strong evidence that the objects are super flat and
highly reflective. They're just catching the sunlight for a moment,
like a flashing reflector.
Speaker 1: It is so ironic that the analogy she references, the
one people were using back in the fifties, perfectly matches
the physics of what they're seeing on the photographic plate.
Speaker 2: People were describing dinner plates or.
Speaker 1: Saucers, and the data suggests flat, circular, reflective objects. It
lends this incredible weight to the historical sighting descriptions that
were so often dismissed by the authorities.
Speaker 2: The people seeing these things at the time might have
been describing the literal physical geometry that the astronomical data
now implies. It's quite a thing.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about altitude. This is where the Vasco team
had to make an initial hypothesis. Right. They couldn't get
a precise orbit from just a single point of light
on one plate, no, but they.
Speaker 2: Were looking for a pattern of disappearance, and they focused
on a specific.
Speaker 1: Range around forty two thousand kilometers altitude.
Speaker 2: Yeah, around forty two thousand kilometers. Now, why that specific number.
Speaker 1: It's just above geosynchronous orbit or GEO.
Speaker 2: Exactly. GEO is at about thirty five seven hundred and
eighty six kilometers, and that's where satellites can remain stationary
relative to the Earth's rotation. It's the perfect stable altitude
for long term surveillance or communication relays.
Speaker 1: So if these artifacts really are long duration high orbit probes,
looking for them near that stable zone just makes perfect sense.
Speaker 2: It does. But until they get a physical sample or
triangulate them with modern tell us. This is the center
piece of the research. This is the section of that
interview that provides the undeniable statistical evidence. This isn't just
a theory, it's this incredibly elegant expt. They designed to
distinguish real orbiting objects from static defects on a piece
of film.
Speaker 1: And they needed it because they faced a lot of pushback.
Speaker 2: Oh significant pushback. Doctor Larol mentioned a twenty twenty four
paper where critics focus on a tiny, tiny subset of
the data, only nine transients.
Speaker 1: Just nine out of over one hundred thousand yep.
Speaker 2: And from those nine, which she called their weakest case,
they tried to claim the entire data set was just
plate defects. It was a massive statistical fallacy.
Speaker 1: It's like testing nine grains of sand at a vast
beach and then concluding the entire beach is made of concrete.
Speaker 2: Exactly. So the Vasco team had to come up with
a test that could be applied to the entire sample
of one hundred and seven thousand data points, and they
found the perfect method in the Earth's Shadow.
Speaker 1: The Earth's Shadow test. This is a statistical smoking gun,
it is.
Speaker 2: It's a test rooted in really basic physics. You don't
need to know the object's speed or its exact altitude.
To prove it's an orbiting object, you just need to
know its light source.
Speaker 1: And for a highly reflect object in orbit, the light
source is the Sun.
Speaker 2: Precisely so, if an object is highly reflective and its
orbiting Earth, when it passes into the massive shadow cast
by the Earth, the umbra, which extends way out into space,
the reflected sunlight is instantly cut off.
Speaker 1: The object has to disappear from the photographic plate.
Speaker 2: It must, There's no other option.
Speaker 1: And the genius of this method is the control group.
A plate defect, a scratch, a bit of dust, a
chemical spot, that's a static feature of the film. It
has zero reason, absolutely no physical connection to the Earth's
orbit or the Sun's.
Speaker 2: Reflection, none whatsoever. So if all these transients were just defects,
their distribution across the photographic plate should be completely uniform,
completely random. They should show up just as often in
the area of the sky where the Earth's shadow is
as they do outside of it.
Speaker 1: But that's not what they found. They looked for statistical
a deficit, a lack of transience in the area of
the sky that was projected onto the plates where the
Earth's shadow should have been.
Speaker 2: Right the shadow zone they examine. It is projected as
a circle of roughly eight point seven degrees and radius
in the sky. It varies a bit depending on the
time of year in the observatory's position, but that's the zone.
Speaker 1: And when they ran the statistics.
Speaker 2: They found a serious and highly significant deficit of flashes
in that shadow zone.
Speaker 1: Serious deficit feels like an understatement. What was the actual
statistical breakdown?
Speaker 2: Doctor Valariel was very clear about this. Roughly one third,
one third of the total transience are statistically missing in
that shadow zone.
Speaker 1: A third of them just aren't there.
Speaker 2: They're not there. If they had found zero deficit, the
critics would have been right, it would all be random defects.
But the absence of one third of the data points
proves mathematically that those objects are highly reflective, highly mobile,
orbital objects that depend on solar reflection to be seen.
Speaker 1: Let's just put that number in perspective for everyone listening.
They cataloged one hundred and seven thousand transients. A one
third deficit means that statistically at least thirty five thousand
of those cataloged flashes are confirmed real reflective artifacts orbiting
the Earth.
Speaker 2: You just can't dismiss that that magnitude of evidence cannot
be explained away as dust on a lens.
Speaker 1: It's unassailable proof.
Speaker 2: The method is so robust because it doesn't require knowing
what the objects are, only how they behave it statistically
demolishes the claim that the entire sample is due to defects,
and it validates the existence of this massive, previously unknown
population of orbital objects.
Speaker 1: It's the moment they prove this silent armada Israel.
Speaker 2: It is so we've now proven that thirty five thousand
of these objects are highly reflective flat spacecraft, totally dependent
on the Sun for their light. But remember the total
initial catalog was one hundred and seven.
Speaker 1: Thousand, right, So that raises a huge question about the
other two thirds the transience.
Speaker 2: What are they not? All the transients show that definitive
statistical signature of being purely reflective sunlight, and this opens
the door to a much more complex possibility that.
Speaker 1: Some of them could be amissive objects.
Speaker 2: Exactly, meaning they have their own power source or maybe
what we're actually seeing our engine burns or active maneuvering.
Speaker 1: Doctor Villerol admits that from a single static point on
a photographic plate she can't definitively say if the light
is reflected sunlight or if the object is generating its
own light.
Speaker 2: It could be either. The ones confirmed by the shadow
test are definitely reflective, the others they remain ambiguous.
Speaker 1: This duality, though, it suggests that the orbital population might
not be some passive swarm of debris. It could be
an active fleet with objects that have different functions or different.
Speaker 2: Energy systems, and if they are amissive, we can start
to conceptualize just how powerful their propulsion might be.
Speaker 1: This is where that fantastic thought experiment for the source
material comes in. The interviewer asked an AI to analyze
a scenario to help visualize what an amissive object might look.
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, using one of our most powerful and well
known engines.
Speaker 1: The scenario was this, if three objects were approaching Earth
and they were using a burning thrust as bright as
the ardibly powerful Saturn V engine, one of.
Speaker 2: The brightest rocket engines in history.
Speaker 1: And that light source generated a similar brightness to some
of the transients they observed on the plates, how far
away would those objects have to be?
Speaker 2: And the calculation was startling about eight thousand kilometers.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, so that's much much closer than the initial
forty two thousand kilometer altitude they hypothesized For the reflective objects.
Speaker 2: It's a huge difference. So if some of these flashes
really are engine burns of that magnitude, the objects themselves
could be sitting in relatively low or medium Earth orbit
much closer than we think. And conversely, conversely, if those
amissive objects are actually sitting way out at the forty
two thousand kilometer geo mark, their light source must be
exponentially more powerful than a Saturn V engine. We'd be
talking about a truly advanced propulsion technology.
Speaker 1: The implications are just profound. If the reflective objects represent
passive surveillance or maybe long duration probes, the emissive ones
could represent actively power maneuvering or maybe even recently deployed assets.
Speaker 2: It tells us the orbital ecosystem around Earth is far
more populated and complex than we ever imagined. It could
feature totally different types of non human technology operating side
by side.
Speaker 1: It makes a kind of sense, doesn't it. Yeah, why
deploy tens of thousands of passive reflectors if you aren't
also deploying active powered components The fact that the phenomenon
includes both suggests a highly sophisticated, multi layered operation.
Speaker 2: Right. So, once the Vasco team prove the physical reality
of these objects using the Earth's shadow, the next logical
step was to shift focus from physics to well to history.
Speaker 1: When did these objects appear and was their appearance random?
Speaker 2: This work was led by doctor Vilail's colleague Stephen Brule
from Thunder University. He's the one who spearheaded the study
looking for these temporal connections between the astronomical transience and
high profile human events, and.
Speaker 1: The results are they're utterly unsettling.
Speaker 2: The first correlation they found was with our most little technology,
nuclear weapons. They observed a significant finding a massive sixty
eight percent increase in the number of transients observed within
a day of a nuclear weapon blowing off in the
upper atmosphere.
Speaker 1: The sixty eight percent increase, that's a staggering surge. It
implies not just a passive presence, but an active reaction
or a dramatic increase in visibility tied to our activity.
Speaker 2: It does. But here's the critical question a skeptic would ask,
is that just a coincidence. Palomar was distant from these tests.
Were they just running the observatory more often around these
high profile government events and maybe that skewed.
Speaker 1: The data right, a kind of observation bias.
Speaker 2: Doctor Villarial addressed this directly. The observatory was distant, yes,
which means they were likely missing a lot of localized
transience related to the tests. But the data was taken
from historical archival plates. It was a pre existing record, so.
Speaker 1: The correlation was found by cross referencing this fixed data
set with the historical record of detonations.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and the fact that they found such a massive
spike despite the distance suggests the actual correlation might be
exponentially stronger if they had more complete global data.
Speaker 1: So these objects were, in some demonstrable way reacting to,
or at least monitoring, our highest level of technological escalation,
our ability to destabilize our own environment.
Speaker 2: It certainly fits the narrative, doesn't It an external entity
keeping a very close watch on humanity's most powerful and
destructive impulses.
Speaker 1: And the same pattern held true for mass UFO sidings.
They saw a statistically significant increase in transience on days
when major global UFO sidings were.
Speaker 2: Happening, but the correlation got even stronger when they started
combining the factors.
Speaker 1: Yes, the biggest increase of all was seen when they
looked at days that had both a nuclear test and
a mass UFO siding.
Speaker 2: That data point suggests a complex, multi layered event where
our technological escalation and public awareness of these phenomena overlap
with the maximum orbital activity.
Speaker 1: It creates this connection hypothesis at its most compelling, that
the operational activity or maybe just the visibility of these
objects is tightly linked to moments of significant human tension
or technological breakthroughs.
Speaker 2: Things that potentially affect the biosphere or global security.
Speaker 1: To bring this home with this specific example, we have
to talk about the finding related to the legendary Washington
flap of nineteen fifty two.
Speaker 2: This was probably the most famous mass UFO sighting in
US history. It involved multiple radar contacts, jet fighters being scrambled,
numerous witnesses over the nation's capital in July nineteen fifty two,
just a huge event, and the.
Speaker 1: VASCO team analyzing the Mount Palamar plates without even knowing
the historical significance of the date, they found an astonishing
data point for July twenty seven, nineteen fifty two.
Speaker 2: What did they find.
Speaker 1: They discovered a formation of five distinct transients, all in
a narrow band. Doctor vill Laurel described them as not
perfectly a lot, you know, not like a military formation,
but clearly grouped together in this narrow sector of the sky.
Speaker 2: And this is where the statistics just silence the critics.
The probability of this specific formation five objects occurring randomly
in that particular image, given the overall density of transience,
it was calculated at a stunning one in ten thousand.
Speaker 1: One in ten thousand.
Speaker 2: That is an incredibly rare, statistically anomalous event that just
happens to perfectly coincide with the peak of the Washington Flat.
Speaker 1: It's so hard to dismiss that as a coincidence, especially
when you consider they also found a triple transient example
from the previous weekend, suggesting a build up of orbital
activity leading directly into the main event over Washington.
Speaker 2: And the most important detail, the one that really eliminates
the possibility of confirmation bias, is doctor Villarreal's personal admission
about this.
Speaker 1: She stressed that these temporal correlations were analyzed before the team,
particularly Stephen Brule, even cross referenced the data with historical events.
Speaker 2: When she was initially writing the paper describing the data,
she said she had never heard about the Washington.
Speaker 1: Flat, so the correlation was purely data driven. It was
discovered only after the statistical analysis was complete.
Speaker 2: That detail is the intellectual lock box that secures this finding.
It wasn't driven by researchers who were looking for a
historical match. The historical match was imposed upon them by
the data itself.
Speaker 1: It really forces us to acknowledge that whatever these objects are,
whether they're ancient human tech, alien probes, or something else,
entirely they have been observing our planetary activities, particularly our
destructive ones, for at least seventy years.
Speaker 2: This research is so far reaching, so controversial that it
just demands an extraordinary level of scientific rigor, and I
think it's vital we spend some time appreciating that this
is not the work of one or two enthusiasts. This
is a collaborative, international, and methodologically sound effort the VASCO Project.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, when you make claims this massive, the strength is
in the process and the people involved. Yeah, and doctor
Billarel deliberately highlighted the different teams and their roles to
demonstrate the checks and balances they built into the analysis.
Speaker 2: They ran two parallel methods for data extraction and verification,
which is that's the gold standard for avoiding bias.
Speaker 1: So let's look at the key contributors. On one hand,
you have the purely automated large scale data extraction right.
Speaker 2: That was led by Enriq Solano. He's a core team
member who developed the automated analysis they used to catalog
all one hundred and seven thousand transients. And doctor Viloreel
was really careful to note that he is a traditional astronomer.
He is not a UFO enthusiast, so.
Speaker 1: His professional bias was towards skepticism.
Speaker 2: Which adds immense credibility to the raw data extraction process.
Speaker 1: And running at the same time was the manual citizen
science based effort which acted as the critical check on
the algorithm.
Speaker 2: YEP, the IT backbone for that. The citizen science interface
was built by a team at UPS University led by
Christian Pullmans. This allowed thousands of regular people to manually
check and classify the flashes and then.
Speaker 1: The manual analysis of all those findings that was outsourced
to another independent team.
Speaker 2: To the Algerian team led by doctor Jamahal Mamouney and
Hishanguri at Constantine University. Having this large independent team analyzed
the findings from the citizen scientists and running it parallel
to the automated analysis that ensures that no single source
of bias, whether it's human or algorithmic, could contaminate the
verification process.
Speaker 1: That is a phenomenal commitment to validation. They intentionally pitted
a highly automated traditional scientific method against a massive distributed
human analysis just to make sure they weren't seeing artifacts
of their own system.
Speaker 2: And they had other experts too support Astronomer Stefan Gier
conducting follow up observations, Alina Sklanska providing analysis expertise, and
of course Stephen Brule, who added the historical context connecting
the shadow verified objects to the nukes and the UFO setings.
It's a truly interdisciplinary approach.
Speaker 1: When you look at the makeup of the team, it
tells you what they value. They value process objectivity and
external verification.
Speaker 2: And that objectivity extends to their own internal conclusions. Doct
while admitted she is the crazy one who likes to
form and test the boldest hypotheses like techno signatures, or
advanced surveillance operations. She's willing to test the extraterrestrial hypothesis,
but she.
Speaker 1: Also stressed that the majority of the team remains open minded,
very much so.
Speaker 2: They understand that while the Earth's Shadow test definitively confirms
the objects are real and in orbit, it does not
confirm their origin.
Speaker 1: Their possibilities range from purely astrophysical phenomena, which seems unlikely
given the geometry in the shadow test, to active extraterrestrial surveillance.
Speaker 2: Or the equally mind bending possibility objects left by a past,
forgotten human civilization. Their conclusion is that they have to
remain scientifically humble. They have to recognize that the current
data simply forces them to look at these extraordinary possibilities.
Speaker 1: This open mindedness is also why they're so keen to
address the issue of continuity. We know they were there
in the nineteen fifties, but has this fleet vanished or
is it still up there, still operating.
Speaker 2: They haven't yet run the analysis on the subsequent decades
of plates the sixties, seventies, or eighties, but it's a
high priority for them. We can, however, compare the historical
rate to modern surveys right.
Speaker 1: The nineteen fifties data showed a rate of about one
point one transience per square.
Speaker 2: Degree per hour, and modern transience surveys actually show a
slightly higher rate one point seven to one point eight
transients per square degree per hour. The increase is there,
it's just not dramatically higher.
Speaker 1: Which leads to the fundamental question that doctor Villarel posed.
Are we simply miscategorizing a continuing surveillance operation as our
own debris?
Speaker 2: She asks if the countless modern flashes that astronomers just
assume our space trash unidentified fragments of rockets or satellites,
are actually these same long duration non human objects.
Speaker 1: If the nineteen fifties had thirty five thousand verified artifacts,
it seems highly likely that their presence persists today, just
masked by our own orbital pollution.
Speaker 2: And she even wants to check early nineteen sixties lists
of uncorrelated tracks objects that they could definitively identify as
satellites back then to see if they vanish in the
Earth's shadow. That would be a way to confirm continuity.
Speaker 1: The journey from observing vanishing stars to confirming a silent
armada in Earth orbit has been just phenomenal, But observation
only gets you so far. What's the next logical, actionable
step for the Vasco team.
Speaker 2: Well, their immediate plans involve refining their analysis of the
existing beta. They want to run the shadow test at
different hypothesized altitudes to see if the highest density of
these objects really is around that forty two thousand kilometer
GEO mark, or if it might be higher, maybe sixty
thousand kilometers or even much lower.
Speaker 1: But the true ambition the real next step lies in
the Exoprobe project. This is their leap from historical archival
analysis to real time physical tracking and interception.
Speaker 2: The exoprob project is the plan to use modern powerful
telescopes to triangulate these transients. Triangulation is the only way
to get the definitive actual altitude of these objects, and
once they can confirm the orbital altitude instability, then they
can move to the ultimate scientific objective, retrieval.
Speaker 1: The holy grail of this research is getting a physical
sample of one of these objects, because if you have
the object, you can start asking questions about its construction,
its material, and most importantly, its age. The dating method
they propose is what makes this so exciting, since traditional
carbon dating is irrelevant for non organic material. They plan
to analyze the micro meteorite holes on the surface of
the object.
Speaker 2: Can you walk us through how that works?
Speaker 1: Sure, objects orbiting in space are just constantly being bombarded
by tiny dust particles and micro meteorites. The longer an
object has been up there in orbit, the higher the
density of impact creators that will accumulate.
Speaker 2: So if an object shows signs of extensive bombardment many
different sizes and densities of impaied holes, scientists could potentially
determine that the artifact is at least five hundred years old.
Speaker 1: Five hundred years old, that is a mind bending concept.
It pushes the potential deployment date of this orbital fleet
back to the fifteen to twenty before the scientific revolution,
before the invention of the telescope.
Speaker 2: We're talking about truly revolutionary technology from a time we
associate with wooden ships and simple clocks, and.
Speaker 1: That age dating immediately feeds back into the discussion of origin.
Doctor Villariel is so careful to emphasize that even if
they retrieve a five hundred year old artificial object, the
origin remains an open question.
Speaker 2: She cautions against immediately shouting aliens.
Speaker 1: Yes, She reminds us that they cannot exclude the possibility
that this technology came from some past human civilization on
the Earth that we just have forgotten about, a highly
advanced but maybe regionally focused civilization that launched this orbital
surveillance a long time ago, only for its existence to
be lost to history.
Speaker 2: The practical challenge, of course, is logistics. If these are
intelligent autonomous probes that have been operating for centuries, they
may not exactly want to come down to Earth.
Speaker 1: A bit of an understatement. The interview ended with a
note about the necessity of connecting doctor Villarel with people
in the space garbage disposal field to help facilitate a
mission plan to intercept and retrieve one of these objects.
Speaker 2: The scientific and engineering verdles are just immense, but the
payoff is absolute. You would fundamentally rewrite history, regardless of
whether the artifact proves to be ancient, human or extraterrestrial.
A physical sample dating back five hundred years would provide
indisputable proof of advanced technology operating in orbit centuries before
we ever cracked the physics necessary to join them.
Speaker 1: We started thrilling threads today challenging the assumption that all
evidence of non human technology has to be distant or dramatic,
and the Vasco project proves that a silent armada has
been waiting hidden in plain sight.
Speaker 2: The AHA moments here are just statistically ironclad. We've established
the existence of what roughly thirty five thousand highly reflective
flat artifacts orbiting the Earth in the nineteen fifties, and
that's validated by the simple yet elegant physics of the
Earth's shadow tests, and.
Speaker 1: Their behavior isn't random. The op statistically correlate with moments
of global tension, a sixty eight percent increase in sightings
tied to nuclear test and they form these statistically anomalous
patterns during events like the Washington flap of nineteen fifty two,
a pattern link to a one in ten thousand probability, and.
Speaker 2: The rigor of the team using both automated and citizen
science verification means the core finding that these are real
orbiting objects is robust. The scientific conversation has really moved
past if they exist to what they are.
Speaker 1: Which leads us back to the incredible possibilities that doctor
Villarel and her team are pursuing. If they succeed in
the exitprobmission and they retrieve a sample they might hove
through micro meteorite dating that this technology has been operational
for five centuries.
Speaker 2: Five centuries. That means this fleet watched the Enlightenment, the
Industrial Revolution, two World Wars, and the entire birth of
the nuclear age.
Speaker 1: So, for you listening, given the sheer number of highly advanced, reflective,
intelligently behaving objects found in the nineteen fifties and their
strong correlation with our most destabilizing activities, what stands out
to you? Do you believe these silent Watchers represent an
ancient technology we simply forgot, may be lost to some
cataclysm human history, or are they an active, long term
surveillance operation from somewhere else. What implications does a five
hundred year old fleet have for our view of history.
We'd love to hear your thoughts.